HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3596 of 2019
Revisionist :- Rahul (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gajendra Pratap Singh
Hon’ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 21.08.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act),Kushinagar in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2019 (Rahul Versus State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar in Case Crime No.222 of 2018 under Sections 377 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Khadda, District Kushinagar, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist, Rajul was rejected.
The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 03.07.2019 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 24.07.2018 on the ground that his release on bail is likely to bring him into association with any unknown criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge,Allahabad which was rejected vide order dated 21.08.2019, hence this revision.
Heard Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist,Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh,learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders as well as material placed on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Board rejected the bail application on the basis of surmises and conjecture whereas the report of District Probation Officer was in his favour. There was nothing on record to bring the case of the revisionist within the purview of any of the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act. It is further contended that the District Probation Officer in its report dated 23.07.2019 has recorded that looking to the future of the revisionist that he is pursuing his studies, it appears that he would continue with his studies and it would be proper to hand over him to the custody of anyone of his family member so that he can join mainstream of the society. The revisionist is in custody since 20.08.2018.
The bail application of Juvenile has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:
12. Bail of juvenile. – (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
The aforesaid provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. No such report was filed by the Probation Officer or the police so as to bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.The report of the District Probation Officer was only to the effect that the parents of the revisionist have no control over the accused-revisionist and he requires proper guidance and supervision There is nothing on record to show that the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for grant of bail to a juvenile, as held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) JIC 771 (LB).
In these circumstances, the Board was not justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist.
Learned Special Judge has also not considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.
Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.08.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kushinagar in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2019 (Rahul Versus State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar in Case Crime No.222 of 2018 under Sections 377 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Khadda, District Kushinagar are set aside.
Let the revisionist-Rahul involved in Case Crime No.222 of 2018 under Sections 377 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Khadda, District Kushinagar be released on bail on his mother/father executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar on the condition that he will keep the revisionist in her/his proper care and custody and will constantly contact his school management, if he continues with the studies and will report to the Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad once in a two months regarding the progress made by the revisionist.
Order Date :- 13.1.2020
MN/-
